If you (or someone else) have (has) corrected an ISBN in an article I labelled using this account as having an invalid ISBN, and I have re-labelled it using this account before 14:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC), it is an error on my part. Please accept my apologies. Any other ISBN problems, please leave me a note. R.F.
Hello, made some modifications to the Mirabilis Media company stub. How can I complete the information on this company (shareholders, executives, etc?) and also wehn do we know it's not a stub anymore?
Best Regards.
Welcome to WP. I would suggest you ask for help on the Romanian WP, however there is a book called Who Owns Who that may help with corporate ownership. RichFarmbrough 11:05 5 August2006 (GMT).
(It's a judgement call when something ceases to be a stub.)
Thank you for your fast reply. I understand now that being or not a stub it's somewhow relative.
I can continue to edit that article, and I hope it would be accepted, as long as I am the owner of the company. My intention is to write three more chapters: history, internet properties (detailing the websites that company owns, and shareolders structure).
Hi Rich. Question about nomenclature of articles. I basically made an article, for Long Island (Boston) using the form, "Long Island (Boston)"
User:Halibut_Thyme changed this to Long Island, Massachusetts without discussion. None of the linking articles linking to it were changed. Any ideas ? I left a note on the contributor's page and no response so far: User_talk:Halibut_Thyme Bests and Thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:34, 13 August2006 (UTC)
Aye, Rich, Boston is not only in America. There is the original St. BOtolph'S TOwN (Boston) in Lincolnshire . However, there may be a lot of Long Island's in Massachusetts, as well ! I didn't seed the original article: I just added a lot of material to it after research. It seems to have been a talking point 13 February2006 in Talk:Enclave#Long_Island. Also, the article links to Long Island (Boston) were left pointing to a redirect instead of the new article. That should be fixed. Hmm. So you're recommending that the main article stay as Long Island, Massachusetts ? Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:21, 13 August2006 (UTC)
Okay, Rich. Thanks for all the ideas. I am not sure of the statistical distribution of convention in WP for such an ambiguity. I will go all the way and make a 'Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts' article and move it all there. Okay ? And change the links. Ah, glad you're close to Lincs. Nice place. As I remember, Wikipedian Chris Horry (User:Zerbey --- notice in the photo Chris is wearing a NY Yankee baseball hat ... something which is anathema to a Boston, Massachusetts person ;)) is from the original Boston in Lincs ! Let me know that you agree with the move to the new article title. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:28, 13 August2006 (UTC)
Hi Chris. I just wish I had known you were going to unilaterally do this. Oh well. The article should stay in one place now. It's been moved too often recently. I have given it as a reference to historians, scholars, and people at large. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll avoid them for now. Feel free to revert if you like. Having said that, the discussion at albums was inconclusive (as are a lot of discussions in that project - don't know why). Perhaps it's time to give some more thought to updating the guideline page?
Starting those articles makes you a kindred spirit, as I entered and corrected a lot of Now! track listings on the Free CDDB, may years ago. RichFarmbrough 18:59 14 August2006 (GMT).
There's quite a debate on the deletion of this article and I've tried to verify what i could, change the tone a bit and weigh in to keep and improve. Could you look at what I've got there and see if the neutrality and verifiability tags are still needed? Also, if it merits keeping? As always, many thanks. Cheers,Your inclusionist pal in the U.S.--Beth Wellington 20:52, 14 August2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the tags. It was deleted, but I restored it. The article was likewise deleted. Oh well--Beth Wellington 15:31, 17 August2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 15 August2006 (UTC)
in the left column and
{{coor dms|$1|$2|$3|$4|$6|$7|$8|$9|city}}
in the right, tick the regex box. I did think of doing the radio masts with it. RichFarmbrough 19:43 16 August2006 (GMT).
Note you also want to change the "city" parameter to something more appropraite,, perhaps "landmark", I can't remember. RichFarmbrough 19:44 16 August2006 (GMT).
ISBN-'s
Hi noticed an insertion of - into an art I had been working on, could you point me to the rules on this, as all I have seen to date is the block of numbers on others entries. Thanks. SatuSuro 01:19, 18 August2006 (UTC)
They are based on a table found on the ISBN Agency's web site here. I assume you know that the first part is language group, the second publisher (within lang group) the third a serial number and the last a check digit.
Gawd I do hope you dont feel a need to go through my contributions list there are hundreds of arts with the - 's missing :) SatuSuro 13:44, 20 August2006 (UTC)
Question: The unhyphenated ISBNs work fine for looking up a book, that's what we use in MARC records here in the library, and each one is unique. I agree that the standard says "The ten-digit number is divided into four parts of variable length, which must be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces" although it allows the hypens (spaces) to be omitted for data processing. So far as I can see, the hyphens do help you read the number if you know the code, but are not necessary. Or am I missing something? Bejnar 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No you are quite right. To identify the book you need the number, for the extra information you need either the hyphens or the appropriate part of the hyphenation rules. RichFarmbrough 18:46 29 August2006 (GMT).
Linking years
I started de-linking years after I saw comments made by you to the effect that should be done, but there seems to be some dispute about this. I'm not an expert on MoS, and I wonder if you could add anything to the debate. It started on User talk:Harro5 and has continued on my talk page and on Rebecca's talk page. Tyrenius 05:12, 18 August2006 (UTC)
Miscellanea vs trivia
I noticed a couple recent edits of yours on album pages changing the Trivia sections to Miscellanea. What's the reasoning behind this? I didn't find anything with a few quick searches :\ ~Gertlex 05:25, 19 August2006 (UTC)
The reason is that "Trivia" is information which is not really of use or interest. Ideally information that is of interest should be in the article body, information that is not should not be in the article at all. Nonetheless miscellaneous useful information may need a section of it's own - calling that section "Trivia" invites the addition of facts such as "Harold Lloyd took more cream in his coffee making this film, than in the two previous films put together." You may well find a better name than I have used, if so, please change it and let me know. See also Wikipedia:Trivia. RichFarmbrough 20:04 20 August2006 (GMT).
Rich, this may relate to SmackBot more than you, but Wiki standard practice is to always make the header "External links" (plural) even if there's only one external link today.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:24, 22 August2006 (UTC)
Signing articles
Hi Rich. Contributor User_talk:Frank_J_Larkin did a nice job on the Moon Island and Hangman Island articles. He signed his name and town, "Frank J. Larkin Acton, MA" at the bottom of the article. I removed it and left a message on his discussion page. We don't sign articles as far as I know, right ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:36, 22 August2006 (UTC)
ISBNs for Sutton Court
Thanks for pointing out the ISBN problems on Sutton Court. I think I've fixed tem all but would be grateful if yu'd check.— Rodtalk 21:11, 22 August2006 (UTC)
I have fixed all I can find. Can you please check again to see if any other invalid ISBN in the article. Thanks, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one I think is wrong becasue the check digit doesn't match ISBN 81-7033-526-9. RichFarmbrough 15:08 23 August2006 (GMT).
The source I used quoted it wrongly. I searched the net and found another source which quoted another ISBN (with a different last digit) having consistant digits. I have made the corrections. Thanks for pointing it out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, the moment someone lifted the protection on the Clare Nasir article, User:195.93.21.33 came right in immediately and vandalised it. Oh well. A shame. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rich, for your kind attention. It is a bit frustrating. Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was not quite immediately, but it felt so, subjectively. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happened again, Rich, on 24th August. Vandalised by User:195.93.21.33, again, as is his habit. Reverted, but am at a loss. There are much more important things to do. *sigh* Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rich, as ever, for your kind help. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you changed the hyphenation of an ISBN in The Tale of Genji, but also added a tag for an Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. I followed the ISBN link, and the A9 (Amazon) search came up with the proper book. Other searches also returned correctly. What is invalid about the ISBN? Neier 23:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the -0 comes up on Amazon.com, but not the -2. The Japanese site that is linked from the ISBN page doesn't seem to care about the final digit at all. 0, 2, 8, 9, all worked. So, you're calculations seem to be correct. Neier 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chew Valley & the front page
Hi, as you spotted Chew Valley is to be on the front page next week. I'm going to be away on holiday & will have no web access so will not be able to counter any vandalism etc - would you be able to keep an eye on the page for me before & during 31st August? — Rodtalk 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I'll do what I can beforehand, but the main page FA is always closely watched anyway, so have a relaxing holiday. RichFarmbrough 14:44 24 August2006 (GMT).
Otago Peninsula
Hi Rich - I notice you added an "invalid ISBN" tag to the Otago Peninsula article. Which ISBNs are the invalid ones? I have a couple of those books sitting in front of me, and the primary author of the article is User:Peter Entwisle, who is also the author of two of the listed books. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then your calculations are wrong. The ISBN on that book is identical to as it is written in the article - look here or here for confirmation of this fact. The same is true of the two books listed at Dunedin Public Art Gallery. In that instance, not only are the two ISBNs identical in book and article, but the books were both written by a primary writer of the article. Please double-check your information, because judging by the other comments below it looks like you are marking a lot of articles at the moment with incorrect allegations about ISBN numbers. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the Australian National University has made a mistake and used both ISBN 0-7315-0342-1 (incorrect) and ISBN 0-7315-0342-2 (correct) for two different books. See here and here. Mushroom (Talk) 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems Dunedin used two ISBNs for the same book: ISBN 0-473-00263-0 (incorrect) and ISBN 0-473-00263-9 (correct), see here and here. Mushroom (Talk) 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK... that makes sense. Sorry about the grumbling :) Grutness...wha? 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SCOTLAND'S FORgotten VALOUR
Commonwealth --> Commonwealth of Nations for VC's.
Thanks for picking this up.
the typography of the title on the book uses capitalisation to contrast emphasis ("SCOTLAND'S FORgotten VALOUR"), to communicate additional meaning, namely a reference to the For Valour inscription on the medal -- and presumably the idea that valour is so much a part of the national character as to justify suggesting that "Scotland exists for the sake of valour".)
If you look it up on Amazon or isbndb, there is no special capitalisation - just Scotland's Forgotten Valour. Colonies Chris 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you recently added this article to Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs, and based upon User:Rich Farmbrough\Invalid ISBNs the ISBN that is apparently at issue is the one for the Watkins book. While I do not know what methodology you used to determine that the ISBN was incorrect, I am able to state that the number in the article matches the numbers listed for the book in the Library of Congress catalog and the Amazon listing for the book. The formatting of the number also matches the formatting used on the back cover of my local library's copy of the book. As a result of this information verifying the book's ISBN, I have reverted your addition of the article to this category. --Allen3talk 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article said ISBN 0-668-09051-6 it is actually 0-688-09051-6, a subtle difference (I have corrected the article). The check (for most ISBNs I have labelled - some have digits missing) is by comparing the check digit (the last) whith what it would be assuming the rest of the number is correct. I don't label an incorrect hyphenation, I fix that. Regards, RichFarmbrough 15:41 25 August2006 (GMT).
That's what I get for reducing my caffeine consumption. Thanks --Allen3talk 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Battleships
Hi there; I obviously have no problem of any kind with editors editing articles that I have written: but you have categorised a number of articles originally by me as "invalid ISBNs". And they are not; the ISBN numbers are those printed within the reference books used. Whether they have been changed I know not, but that would in any case not invalidate my point.--Anthony.bradbury 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anthony, can you point me to one or two of the articles where I may be wrong? RichFarmbrough 21:28 25 August2006 (GMT).
Uneless you have now found and fixed ISBN's in which case, that's fine. RichFarmbrough 21:31 25 August2006 (GMT).
HMS Temeraire (1876), HMS Inflexible (1876), HMS Rodney (1884) and Ajax class battleships. I have reverted your incorrect edits - I have Parkes and Conway open beside me as I write, with the ISBN numbers in full view. I hope that you, or your bot if you are using one ,will not feel the need to make similar incorrect edits on the other sixty or so ship articles I have written?--Anthony.bradbury 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rich, what precisely is the problem with the ISBN's? I obtained them directly from the books themselves. Did someone vandalize them since I added them, or what? ---CH 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've met Peter Cameron at QMC. Back on topic 981-02-4561-6 seems to be wrong as I calculate the check digit to be 0 (assuming the rest were correct), and indeed our own Schur polynomial, written by you (grin) confirms that it should be 981-02-4541-6. RichFarmbrough 21:43 25 August2006 (GMT).
See you were right about Landau & Lifschitz Classical Theory of Fields. I just changed last digit. The UW Library catalog gives another ISBN, probably because they have hardcover and I used the paperback Pergamon fourth edition.
Peter Cameron: good oh! I really enjoy his papers and books, in fact I am getting back into permutation groups at the moment (see Erlangen Program). Thanks for checking. Obviously I have been somewhat hasty in adding some of the ISBNs.---CH 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs
Looking at other recent entries on your talk page, it is clear that I am not alone in my dismay at your approach to ISBNs. May i suggest that you review your procedures?--Anthony.bradbury 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, I am not trying to start a fight; I am just saying that the ISBN numbers on the articles which I authored are the numbers printed on the flyleaves of the reference books in question. If they are printed wrong, so be it. Conway comes in five volumes;the volume from which I am drawing data relates to ships built between 1860 and 1905.--Anthony.bradbury 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I just want to get to the bottom of this, of course I can have made a mistake. RichFarmbrough 22:03 25 August2006 (GMT).
Does the number vary with the year of publication? My copy of this volume is dated 1979 (Conway Maritime Press Ltd).--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can do if it's a different edition, I need to go back a step, though:
OK, let's see these are the HMS articles I found problems with
HMS Electra (H27) ISBN 0-8600-7300-0 : 9 (HMS Electra (Frederick Miller Ltd, London, 1959)) get to that later.
Whatever you say. I make no comment about HMS Electra or HMS Polychrest, which I played no part in creating. As for Rodney, Temeraire and Inflexible, I just copied the printed ISBN on the inside cover of the book. It is 0-85052-6043 (Parkes} as all the articles state. If your calculations give a different number, then either your calculations or my printed copy of the book is wrong. Best wishes.--Anthony.bradbury 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, it doesn't really matter, since all the articles are now fixed, but the last number you gave me is correct (bar a hyphen) and the articles were wrong, as my calculations suggested. "Inflexible" you fixed (but you labelled the fix a revert - having thought I changed the number, which I didn't), the other two I've removed the spurious "9" they now start 0-8 not 09-8. Regards. RichFarmbrough 22:54 25 August2006 (GMT).
No. I am sorry, and if my copy of the book is wrong then fair enough. But the hyphen is NOT wrong. The ISBN number for Parkes is 0-85052-6043. It is NOT 0-85052-604-3. Or the book is wrong. I am sitting here with it in front of me.--Anthony.bradbury 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. But on my word of honour, it doesn't. Obviously you know what you are talking about. But I don't. Could you please tell me why you are so sure that you are right and the book is wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, I would have anyway but I didn't want to bore you. An ISBN is made up of four parts, the first identifies the "language area" a sort of nebulous concept, but 0 is English for example, However this part can be longer so that 99451 (or something like it) represents Congo . This means you can have lots of books in the English (or French - 2) sections, and not so many in the Congo - which makes sense. The next chunk is the publisher, and the same system applies. "Big" publishers get short numbers like Penguin - 14, and Yale I think 300. Then you get a serial number chosen by the publisher, this takes it to 9 digits, for example 0-593-01518 is an English book by Bantam Press, and probably their 1518th book. The last part is a check digit (or X) in this case 5 so the full ISBN is 0-593-01518-5. So that is what the four parts are. As to layout, the international ISBN agency "ISBN User Manual" states "The ten-digit number is divided into four parts of variable length, which must be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces"
although it allows these to be omitted for internal data processing. (On Wikipedia we can't use spaces, because the ISBN magic doesn't work with them.) (Incidentally looking at a book on my desk, the ISBN is correctly hyphenated on the back above the bar code, and in the book's publishing data page, but not on the inside flap.) To confuse matters this will be changing on 1st Jan 2007, with the addition of a 978- before all ISBNs to make them compatible with EANs and allow more numbers to be introduced later with a 979- prefix.
Fair enough. Totally fair enough. I will insert the hyphen in all future articles, and go back and retro-insert it in the previous ones. But not now, because its time for bed!--Anthony.bradbury 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too!
ISBNs again
Hi--Exactly what is wrong with the ISBN 0-89886-238-8, which is the corrected entry I put on the Masherbrum page, which matches the LOC and Amazon, and which checks out (I cut and pasted into an auto-ISBN checker)? Thanks, Spireguy 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your correction was correct, thanks for fixing it. Timing error on my part. RichFarmbrough 22:28 25 August2006 (GMT).
Articles with invalid ISBNs
You have now added this category to a number of articles for which I provided references. What is that about? I entered the ISBN numbers exactly as they appeared in the books. I find it hard to believe that so many of the ISBNs for books that I've used as references are invalid. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Donald, can you give me an example or two, preferably on my talk page (click my surname).RichFarmbrough 23:42 25 August2006 (GMT).
I see now that they all involve the same library book. Let me check it out tomorrow and get back to you. - Donald Albury(Talk) 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have bothered you. I've got them sorted now, including one or two articles you hadn't visited yet. -- Donald Albury 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hogan Cup - I noticed the error when you listed it and fixed it, and you then added the article to ones with incorrect ISBN's, even though it had already been fixed. While checking ISBN's is very useful, I would suggest that you either adding the category when checking, or double check if adding it at a later date. Otherwise, if it is fixed in the time between checking and categorising, no one knows why you're adding the category. Might I suggest a HTML comment in the form of "add cat + <-- please check isbn's xxxxx-xxx-xxxxx and yyyy-yyyy-yyyyy --> which would cover most cases, and also let people know what isbn's are invalid where there are a lot of them). Regards, MartinRe 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< !-- ==Release details== -->
< !-- ~*year, country, publisher ISBN 1234567890, Pub date DD Month Year, binding~ -->
< !--major publication history to be included here, not everything if too extensive-->
< !--example-->
< !--*1999, USA, C.S. Black & sons ISBN 8768768760, Pub date 1 April 1999, Hardback -->
ISBN
What's wrong with the ISBN numbers at Robert Sheaffer? I got them directly from the book. Bubba73(talk), 02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I found a typo in the second one. I'll check the other one. Bubba73(talk), 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Both were my typos. Sorry about that. !Bubba73(talk), 03:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful if you would mark which ISBNs are flawed, instead of just that there is a bad ISBN in an article. Some of these have a lot of ISBNs. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unfortunately this is not simple. And I'm sorry I re-added this to the category after you had fixed it, that was a mistake on my part. However if you look at Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs you will see a pointer to Rich_Farmbrough%5CInvalid_ISBNs where you can look up most of the articles currently in the category and find that in Vilna Troupe the problem ISBN identified was ISBN 973982722 1 whose check digit computes to 5 (as corrected by you). Thanks for fixing the ISBN and sorry again for readding the article. RichFarmbrough 16:54 26 August2006 (GMT).
Hmm. Would it be possible instead of just adding a category to add a template with a link to that page (or an equivalent in Wikipedia space)? It would make it easier for people to follow up. - Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich. Anonymous contributor User:70.191.174.29 (User_talk:70.191.174.29) has put several flags up on the article on Homelessness. I think they're inappropriate. Many of us have worked hard on that article, and cited sources all over the place. And professionals in the field have read it, and have been quite impressed with it. The kinds of edits by that anonymous contributor User:70.191.174.29 have been odd. For example, changing, "Free-care clinics, especially for the homeless, exist and are usually over-burdened with patients. ..." to "Free-care clinics, especially for the homeless, exist but may be over-burdened with patients". That's a plain fact that was referenced. It's a highly questionable edit. I am going to remove the two new flags. Actually, I have taken the chance to roll back the article to a what I believe is a stable and sensible point. It was out of control. We can all start from that point and work our way by rational discussions up to where we want to be. I don't want to be involved in any Wikipedia wars, as I am a Wikipedia pacifist in practice. Please let me know your opinion. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider also the plea made to me by User:Patcat88 "homeless article going to hell" on my talk page (User talk:Wikiklrsc) ... I am not an admin, just a contributor and editor. I put talking points on the Talk:Homelessness and the other anonymous editor's talk page User_talk:70.191.174.29 for Wikipedia peace and sanity. I think I did, but also hope that I did the right thing. I have precious little time to edit and contribute, let alone internet access enough these days. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rich, for your contribution and help. I hope it is back under control now. Point well taken, Rich. I have always agreed that the article is largely from an American point of view. I tried to change that _a bit_ in the history section. Unfortunately, I didn't have good data or the time to find it all, for most other countries. I moved much into the article at Homelessness in the United States, Homelessness in Canada and the like. I hope other contributors will help to make it more universal, as I will endeavour to do, in future. Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, you said in my talk page (User talk:Wikiklrsc): 'and needs some of the "archeolofy" removing from it.' ... whither "archeolofy" ? Archaeology ? A nonce word for 'archaic loftiness' ? Help. Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"vi: (1) substitutions made." ... thought it might be. ;) Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich. So far, it all seems to have worked out well in the end. See User_talk:70.191.174.29. We'll all work together as it should be ! Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider carefully your choice of words before you press the button "save page" after editing wildly. Hereby, I advise you to use the show preview function wisely so that you will find out how ridiculous is your mischief before saving the page. Yfjonas 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to break it to you, but the original article, while showing a sharp and expressive mind, and a strong vocabulary, was in somewhat strange English to say the least, as was your comment on my talk page. Rgds, RichFarmbrough 17:14 26 August2006 (GMT).
Thank you. I rechecked those 3 #s with the books themselves and they are as printed on the jackets. So somebody screwed up somewhere. Hal Jespersen 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I guess I'll go with Amazon's. Hal Jespersen 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE gives examples, Smith, J. How to cite your sources, Random House, 2005. ISBN 1607000X and others, dropping any hyphens and any spaces but retaining a space between ISBN and the first number. The Library of Congress will accept an ISBN as a specific search in its Library Catalogs but only if all of the spaces and hyphens are removed, similarly. Like, ISBN 160700X as one example or ISBN 0890297800 as another example. Whatever works, have fun. Terryeo 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, someone requested that I do a search of the entire en.wikipedia datadump for templates that included something specific that needed to be fixed. I'm sure that project is long finished.
Usually I make notes when I create lists like that, I'm blanking it now.
Insert correct hyphenation according to the International ISBN Agency.
Method: Automatically using AWB.
Speed: 1-8 per minute.
Number: Several hundred per month (estimated), plus backlog.
Frequency: Approx every data dump
Duration: About five hours, plus occasional runs to clear backlog.
Testing: Several hundred test edits have been done.
Both tasks approved for trials, post comments/difs/etc when ready. — xaosfluxTalk 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Task: Check ISBN valid, if not label article.
Method:
Scan database download using custom perl code and check for invlid ISBNs that SB can't fix (length, checksum, character set).
Label automatically using AWB.
Check manually for timing differences. (I.E. ISBN corrected or removed between dump and bot run.)
Speed: 1-8 per minute.
Number: A dozen per month (estimated), plus backlog.
Frequency: Approx every data dump.
Duration: Less than an hour.
Testing: Still under development.
Both tasks approved for trials, post comments/difs/etc when ready. — xaosfluxTalk 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note the calculated check digit can be seen at User:Rich Farmbrough\Invalid ISBNs: there is no certain way of calculating which digits of the pseudo ISBN are incorrect.
Also worth noting there are some 1,100 invalid check digits, so I would expect that the monthly crop of new errors will be 30-60 rather than a dozen.
Hi Rich. Your bot has popped up on my watchlist a few times recently, and I must say I'm impressed with the ISBN reformatting. Nice work! (In saying this I'm assuming you're formatting them correctly, since I know next to nothing about how they should be formatted :)) --kingboyk 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I have been as careful as I can, and after the first 12,000 edits no-one has complained about the formatting being wrong per se, although one guy thinks it's a waste of time, and one was convinced that they should be a block of characters. Incidentally there are about 2,600 regular expressions making up the hyphenation rule base, although it could be done in less. ISBN's that don't fit the hyphenation rules are labelled as invalid, and I have done a separate run to categorise those which don't match their checksum - many of which editors have already fixed. RichFarmbrough 22:13 28 August2006 (GMT).
2600 regular expressions?! My oh my. --kingboyk 08:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ebaums world vandalism
Have a look at this edit. Copy the new location into your address bar, hit enter, and it redirects you to [5], a 404 address. HawkerTyphoon 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn good question. Hit the admin noticeboard, maybe someone can shed light on it?
Domain names can only contain ASCII characters, but most of the world use non-latin scripts or want accents. So the IETF came up with a way to allow any Unicode character in a domain name component: you take out the non-ASCII characters, put "xn--" in front, and append "-" followed by some ASCII characters which specify which non-ASCII chars were removed, and where they were removed from. In this case, the "-nqh" encodes "a Greek lowercase omicron, after the w". Web browsers etc are supposed to automagically "deUnicodeise" URLs (and, um, reUnicodeise them too).
The take-home message is that any ASCIIised domain name containing "xn--" is an IDNA.
Since Wikipedia stores URLs in their Unicode form (as we should), to find URLs containing IDNAs you'd have to search for non-ASCII characters in the "host" part of the URL - maybe ^[a-z]+:/+[!-.0-~][^!-.0-~] would work, assuming we don't have URLs containing usernames or passwords with non-ASCII characters.
I hope this helps; sorry for over-explaining.
What I actually came here to do was thank you for having SmackBot go around and prettify all the ISBNs I've inserted into articles. So: thanks!
It is a waste of edits to merely checksum and add hyphens to ISBN-10 data, when we know that ISBN-13 will be the standard in four months. Automatic conversion is fairly trivial: discard the trailing check digit, prefix a "978", and calculate a new check digit according to these instructions (which differ from those for ISBN-10). The hyphenation is almost identical, only the leading "978" is separated from the rest with a hyphen. You can test your program against this online converter.
For example, to convert "ISBN 1598165747", which would be hyphenated as "1-59816-574-7", we:
Drop the trailing digit, here "7"; result: "159816574".
Prefix "978"; result: "978159816574".
Multiply odd digit positions by 3, where the rightmost digit is considered odd; result: 9,21,8,3,5,27,8,3,6,15,7,12.
Sum; result: 124.
Subtract the last digit from 10, and take the last digit of the answer; result: 6.
Append this check digit to number; result: "9781598165746".
Hyphenate; result: "978-1-59816-574-6".
It's really easy to do. However, I would recommend not converting invalid ISBN-10 data, to ease fixing. A beneficial side-effect would be to make the bad ISBN-10 numbers stand out from the converted ISBN-13 numbers. An unhelpful side-effect is that once bad numbers are fixed, they are likely to remain in the old format until the bot returns.
We must begin to change over. Naturally, there will be a few difficulties. The numbers printed in the books will no longer exactly match the numbers in the articles. Booksellers in the USA and Canada, especially those specializing in old books, may be slow to recognize the ISBN-13 form. And there will always be some resistance to change.
I suppose conversion could be limited to books in print, except I know of no free online source for that information. Or, we could provide both ISBNs. --KSmrqT 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at something like this User:Rich Farmbrough/ISBN template as the next stage. Thus (almost) all ISBN's would change at the right second, and the template could be substed out later. The test template works but doesn't support hyphens. So a new template is required which is actually easy to code, I'll do it later today or tomorrow. RichFarmbrough 10:02 29 August2006 (GMT).
Flagging an ISBN-13 wrongly
I reverted your bot's edit flagging an ISBN as invalid. As far as I can see, it's correct, and it's identical to the ISBN listed on the Cambridge University Press website. I suspect that the bot labels all 13-digit ISBNs as invalid. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll check back over the list for any othe false positives. RichFarmbrough 15:59 29 August2006 (GMT).
SmackBot/References query
It did a lovely job on the tone cluster and Henry Cowell ISBNs. I'm not sure it's directly relevant, but earlier today (before SmackBot's involvement...I think) I started having a problem with the References in "Tone cluster." The article comes up with "ghost' or "echo" (or whatever's the proper term of art) refs--so what should be note 1 reads inline and in the References (called "Notes") section as note 13 (or sometimes 7...or 10...or...). Everything connects properly in an informational way, but lord does it look awful, not to mention confusing. Any idea what the source of the problem is, and how to solve it? Best, Dan — DCGeist 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No--I'm still seeing what should be footnote callout "1" as callout "13"--and then the text of the footnote appearing in the References (dba "Notes") both as note 1 and as note 13. All in all, instead of the proper total of 26 notes, I read 38 notes. I've checked a few other footnoted Wikipedia articles to make sure it's not an issue with my browser--no problem anywhere else. But you're reading it AOK--26 notes, not 38? Hardly know what to think. Thanks for checking. —DCGeist 09:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried shift-reload. No luck. Some gremlin must just be telling me to stop working on the article. Thanks again. Best, Dan —DCGeist 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
SmackBot and ISBN
I've noticed your bot making changes to a lot of book articles. Can you point me to a standard for quoting ISBN, as I've (wrongly?) always just quoted them as one long number in articles I write. If this is wrong, I'd like to be able to improve how I do it. Thanks --Guinnog 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are based on a table found on the ISBN Agency's web site here. I assume you know that the first part is language group, the second publisher (within lang group) the third a serial number and the last a check digit.
Gosh! Fascinating. Thank you. No, apart from the checksum I didn't know any of that. --Guinnog 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published ISBN is invalid
I just removed the invalid ISBN category from the I'saka language article after double checking the book and a couple of library catalogues. Then I read up on ISBNs, calculated the checksum myself, and realized that the ISBN is indeed invalid. What should I do? The purpose of the category is the mark that something needs fixing, but it doesn't seem that there's anything to be fixed. Answer here and I'll take any action necessary. -- Ngio 12:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN Check can give "minimal change" ISBNs for invalid ones. In this case, should it possibly be 0858834545? Cheers --Pak21 12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that's not it. The book I'm talking about is in the Australian National Library catalogue with the invalid ISBN [6]; this is also the ISBN printed in the book itself. -- Ngio 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly this is No. 554 in a series. This would indicate that the publisher incorrectly calculated the checksum. So while, ideally we should contact the ISBN authority, to find the correct solution, I would be inclined to put a temporary note in the article, since from the first of January the check digit will no longer be relevant, and it looks like the rest of the number is correct anyway. The article will then be a special case we have to work around for a while. RichFarmbrough 13:17 29 August2006 (GMT).
OK, so let's just leave things as they are. I'll copy this discussion to Talk:I'saka language. -- Ngio 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it posible to use the bot that used to work for this for other wikis? --Catout 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I expect so. I only ran a script against a datbase dump, that tool was sadly lost, however the historic relic from it Wikipedia:List of ips by number of edits shows that some IP's would have been among the top editors. I was thinking of (writing and) testing a new script against ang.wikipedia.org, since it's fairly trivial. RichFarmbrough 16:49 29 August2006 (GMT).
Interesting. Is there a privacy issue with that page? bobblewik 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on hyphenating ISBNs. I don't use hyphens, manually (I think the reward isn't worth the effort!), but if it's this easy to get them right with AWB, then hats off to you. :) —Serein 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost notes
While I'm reading "ISBN" and--this hour, at least--"tone cluster" as just fine. This seems like a Wikipedia server glitch, perhaps. I doubt it has anything to do with SmackBot (it doesn't even look from the history like the ISBN article's had SmackBot on it--recently anyway), but why don't you put SmackBot on string piano (another under my care) and let's see what, if anything, happens. —DCGeist 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was working on references, so I thought it was a WP problem not SB related. I would just like to have more data before logging a bug (but perhaps it's already been logged). Off to the back burner with it. RichFarmbrough 21:50 29 August2006 (GMT).
